Stauffer v. Newberg et al

Filing 101

OPINION AND ORDER. Signed on 4/13/2020 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JUSTIN STAUFFER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01295-YY

CITY OF NEWBERG, BRIAN CASEY,
NATHAN JAMES, OFFICER CARL
BUSSE, CHRIS RASMUSSEN, PAUL
RAPET, and ERIC STONE,

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
On March 20, 2020, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [ECF 99], recommending that this court rule on three motions for
summary judgment as follows: (1) The City of Newberg Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [ECF 62] should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, (2) Defendant James’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 67] should be DENIED but any negligence claims against
1 –OPINION AND ORDER

him should be dismissed, and (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF 88]
should be DENIED. No objections were filed.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge
but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R
depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject,
or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge You’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [99]. I
make the following rulings, as outlined in Judge You’s opinion:
On City Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [62], I GRANT summary judgment
on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim only against Defendant Rasmussen, on the Monell claim
against all defendants, on the negligence claim against all defendants, and on the battery claim
only against Defendant Rasmussen. I DENY summary judgment on the excessive force and
battery claims against all defendants other than Defendant Rasmussen. I therefore DISMISS with

2 –OPINION AND ORDER

prejudice Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force and battery against Defendant Rasmussen,
Plaintiff’s Monell claim, and his negligence claims.
Defendant James’s Motion for Summary Judgment [67] is DENIED. However, any
negligence claim against Defendant James is DISMISSED with prejudice, in light of my ruling
on the City Defendants’ motion.
Finally, Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment [88] is DENIED in full.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13 day of April, 2020.
____________________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge

3 –OPINION AND ORDER